Two suspects in a shooting that left a 7-year-old Atlanta girl dead and her mother injured are now in custody nearly a week after the violence, police say.

The shooting happened around 9:45 p.m. on Feb. 24 at a home on the 2200 block of Tiger Flowers Drive NW.

Investigators believe the shooting stemmed from a dispute between one of the victim’s family members and the gunman over the phone. Thirty minutes after the argument, the suspect came back and fired shots into the home, police said.

Officers responding to the scene found a 44-year-old woman and her daughter, identified as 7-year-old Zoe Price, shot. Medics rushed the pair to a local hospital, but Price died from her injuries.

Atlanta Police Chief Darin Schierbaum said the department’s homicide unit secured an arrest warrant for 19-year-old Preston Smith two days after the shooting. Smith turned himself in to the Fulton County Jail on March 2.

Schierbaum said officers executed a search warrant on Feb. 27 at a home on McDaniel Street. On that day, 17-year-old Steven Richardson, who police described as an “accomplice,” turned himself in to authorities.

Both men are charged with murder, criminal attempt to commit murder, three counts of aggravated assault, second-degree criminal damage to property, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and four counts of third-degree cruelty to children. Richardson is also charged with possession of a Firearm by a Person Under 18.

At a press conference to announce the arrests, Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens described Price as a bright and compassionate little girl who was “full of energy and full of joy.”

“Her life was cut short in an act of senseless violence, and that loss is not abstract. It is a chair that is going to be missing at the dinner table each night. It is an empty classroom seat next to her friends,” Dickens said.

The mayor called the arrests “a step forward towards justice” for Price’s family and families across the city.

Dickens said that violence, like the act that took Price’s life, would not be tolerated in Atlanta.

AUGUSTA, Ga. (WRDW/WAGT) – An Augusta couple returned home from Israel and Egypt just as the U.S. and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury Saturday.

This happened hours before the State Department issued an urgent warning urging Americans in 14 Middle Eastern countries to “depart now” due to “serious safety risks.”

Diego and Maile Sprague had been staying with a host family in Jerusalem, south of the West Bank. The host family provides self-defense training to women and children living in the West Bank.

“We moved to Jerusalem just south of the West Bank and stayed with a host family that provides self-defense training to women and children that live on the West Bank,” Maile Sprague said. “Sometimes those places aren’t the safest.”

Couple tours Egypt as operation launches

The Spragues left their host family Friday morning to tour Egypt. By Saturday morning, the U.S. and Israel had rolled out Operation Epic Fury.

The couple said their host family was forced to flee their home after two nearby Arab-developed areas were attacked.

“We got word he and his wife had to leave their home because where they live there are two Arab developed areas… and they were attacked, so he and his wife had to flee their home,” Diego Sprague said.

Maile Sprague said the host family is now sheltering with neighbors.

“They are staying in their bomb shelter because there has been constant red alerts, so they’re sharing their bomb shelter with their neighbors,” she said.

Tourism industry shuts down in Egypt

While in Egypt, the Spragues said they witnessed the country’s tourism industry — its largest — coming to a halt.

“Everything that has to do with the tourism industry was closing down. Tourists were trying to leave, and all the buses were being routed to the border for Israel to pick people up from,” Maile Sprague said.

The couple had planned to return to their host family in Israel but instead made the decision to return home to Augusta. They landed in Atlanta hours before the State Department issued its “depart now” warning Monday.

The Spragues said they are safe. Their host family remains in a bomb shelter.

Copyright 2026 WRDW/WAGT. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON (TNND) — As the war in Iran intensifies across the Middle East, a constitutional battle is unfolding in Washington over a fundamental question: Who has the authority to declare war, Congress or the president?

The debate focuses on the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law designed to prevent years-long military conflicts without congressional approval. Lawmakers passed the measure in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to reclaim authority they believed had drifted too far toward the executive branch.

What Is the War Powers Resolution?

The War Powers Resolution was intended to put limits on a president’s ability to send U.S. troops into combat without Congress signing off.

Under the law, a president can deploy forces into hostilities only if Congress has formally declared war, passed a specific authorization for the use of military force, or the U.S. has been attacked.

The resolution also sets strict deadlines.

The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities. From there, a 60-day clock begins. If Congress does not approve the military action within that time, troops must be withdrawn — though the law allows an additional 30-day wind-down period.

Some argue the law was crafted to prevent “never-ending wars.” While others say presidents from both parties have routinely stretched and sidestepped its requirements.

What Does the Constitution Say?

The War Powers Resolution is rooted directly in the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress — not the president — the power “to declare War.”

Article II, Section 2 names the president as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.

In simple terms, Congress decides whether the country goes to war. The president directs the military once it is engaged.

The framers intentionally split that authority. Their goal was to avoid concentrating too much war-making power in one person — likely a reaction to the monarchy they had just broken away from.

But how that balance plays out in real time is often a legal and political fight. At times, disputes over war powers have reached the courts, though Congress and the executive branch frequently resolve them through political pressure rather than judicial rulings.

A Pattern of Stretching the War Powers Resolution

Essentially, every president since 1973 has pushed the boundaries of the War Powers Resolution rather than fully complying with its original intent. As the Council on Foreign Relations explains, the resolution was designed to “provide presidents with the leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies” but also to **require termination of combat after 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes continuation.”

For example:

• Ronald Reagan ordered the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 without prior congressional authorization, later reporting to Congress in a manner “consistent with” the resolution.
• Bill Clinton directed the 1999 NATO air campaign in Kosovo after congressional authorization efforts failed, continuing U.S. engagement beyond the WPR’s typical 60-day reporting window.
• Barack Obama oversaw U.S. participation in the 2011 Libya campaign, arguing that limited strikes did not trigger the full force of the WPR’s time limits.

In more recent years, Donald Trump’s administration has once again brought these issues to the forefront.

War Powers Arguments from the White House

The Trump administration’s principal legal rationale has centered on two points:

Short-term strikes or limited military actions do not always trigger the full 60-day clock under the War Powers Resolution, especially when described as defensive, limited in scope, or tied to national security emergencies rather than prolonged hostilities. In some cases, the White House relies on prior Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) or other statutory authorities rather than seeking new congressional approval.

Current Public Opinion on Iran Strikes

Public opinion reflects significant skepticism about the current U.S. military engagement with Iran. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that just 27% of Americans support the recent U.S. and allied strikes on Iran, while 43% disapprove and 29% remain uncertain.

Another national poll conducted by SSRS for CNN found that nearly 60% of U.S. citizens disapprove of the military actions, and a similar share said that President Trump should seek Congressional authorization for further action.

Beyond polling, internal deliberations in Congress have already begun. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have pushed for votes on war powers resolutions that would seek to limit or require authorization for further military action against Iran. Past attempts to pass similar restraints have failed, reflecting deep partisan divisions and the complexities of enforcing the War Powers Resolution.